Brucey7

Thanks, I think I found a Phenom II-6 at $89 that might help. Next problem is sorting out the RAM, it was upgraded to 8GB 4 years ago and I just assumed it was ok, however unRAID's dashboard says it only has 64MB so I suspect I have some tinkering to do in the BIOS. That would explain why cachedirs never seemed to work in this box

I am currently getting 100% CPU utilization during parity checks and sometimes it won't handle a write to the array.

Sorry, no features, all I have is the mkv file

I have my cousin vinny at 1080p and 8.3GB, has the english subtitle track mud in but turned off by default. It's a little bit grainy, but the definition is very sharp.

I think a lot depends on how you are going to watch them, if you're using PLEX then you lose a lot of quality so it doesn't matter so much. I set up plex but was disappointed with the quality of the resulting movie and replaced it with a Windows box in each room to drive the screens. My main system has a 65" UHD screen and a Windows i7 4K HTPC albeit set at HD1080p most of the time with an Onkyo receiver upscaling 1080p to 2160p as I only have a handful of movies/TV series at 2160p. I keep some movies at 20-50GB, typically straight rips from BluRay with no further compression (often with Dolby ATMOS sound tracks as my TV room is set up with centre ceiling speakers for that). I have 2 unRAID servers, one dedicated to BluRay movies with only 1 user share, currently over 12,500 with an average size of 6.1GB but that average size is going up, it's probably 8-9GB per 1080p and 4-5GB per 720p. I am slowly replacing 720p rips with 1080p rips at typically 8-9GB or more if they are blockbusters. I can see the difference between 720p and 1080p, as for DVD quality, I still have over 4,500 of those on another unRAID server along with a much larger collection of TV series and documentaries. I can't watch DVD rips, the definition is just too bad and the difference between 1080p and 2160p is astounding. As for quality, a lot depends on the nature of the movie, if there are a lot of dark scenes, that is when you can see the difference with shades of black.

@Squid, no community applications. It could be something as simple as the previous tenant of that WAN IP address, anyhow, it all seems ok now. I appreciate there's a million results for that error message if you search it...kind of difficult to search for it when google won't do any searches for you. Do I hear you say "use Yahoo", 5555 I did.

it showed up trying to do any kind of DNS search with google as the default search provider. I have put new firmware on the router and got a new WAN IP address, so far so good

Something on my network seems to be sending automated requests to google, I seem to recall seeing something in 6.1rc6 (which I run on 2 servers) The only thing that has changed on my network is 6.1rc6 and a new router, I've run AV scans on all my PC's and no threat detected, could it be unRAID? From Google We're sorry... ... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.

Currently the "Write corrections to Parity disk" text label is inaccurate, I would suggest correcting it in some way, one suggestion is to change it to "Write corrections to Array" with an little blue (i) window and a pop up explaining what it really does (correct Parity if not match, reconstruct data disk if URE encountered)

The command you need is rsync --progress -avh /mnt/disk15/ /mnt/disk5 This will not give you a top level directory of disk15 with your data under it. Unfortunately, the rsync documentation is wrong on some sites, I have found this out by trial and error. I should add, this will leave your original disk untouched, i.e. not remove the files.

I'll give it a go, thank you again

Thank you very much for that, you are right, i prefer not to have the extra directory level, but I can live with it. I added the trailing slash on the source because my rsync documentation says "A trailing slash on the source changes this behavior to avoid creating an additional directory level at the destination" (techonthenet.com), clearly it's not the case. I guess I can try the next disk without the trailing slash. The MC problem could be because I run my servers headless and telnet across to them from a windows client, I did have a look at the terminal help in MC, but it's about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I fixed it at the CLI with the mv command My MC doesn't draw or navigate properly, it looks like it's set up for the wrong kind of terminal device

Yes I have have /mnt/disk3/disk3/HD Movies. I have never used midnight commander, I looked at it once but it seemed to destroy the formatting on my screen. I would have thought mapping a disk share would have shown me /disk3/HD Movies but it only shows me /HD Movies

I should add, since there is another rsync command running, i prefer not to stop the array, alternatively, I'll have to leave it 44 hours for the next disk copy (6TB) to finish

I am in the middle of converting to XFS, after rsync --progress -avh /mnt/disk3/ /mnt/disk14/ completed succesfully, I moved disk 14 into disk3 slot, changed the assignment in the main page and started the array disk3 folder structure now starts with top level directory disk3 and my user share of HD Movies under that. When I map a disk share to disk3 it shows the top level directory as HD movies, however when I browse it from the webgui, the top level directory is disk3. The files in disk3's HD Movies are no longer being included in my HD movies share, how do I get to the real top level directory to move HD movies back up to the top level?

Yes please, put me down for one, estimated delivery?

try this http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=35743.msg333021#msg333021

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe with the Auto Start the array set to OFF, following an unclean shutdown, I don't think it immediately does a parity check on power on, but there is no way when you start the array to avoid the parity check that writes parity corrections to your parity drive and risks destroying valid parity. Another answer, would be to NOT write parity for any Bit of data where there was a URE detected. If you can't read that bit of data, it's not a valid option to calculate and write parity for it when the chances are that Bit on the parity drive is ALREADY correct. I accept the current method is acceptable on a single or low number of URE's, but it's 100% the wrong solution on thousands of URE's. You lose any chance of ever recovering the disk with the URE's.

I had a situation where my system crashed and on reboot it destroyed parity protection. On reboot, one data disk was producing lots of URE's and it immediately wrote garbage to the parity disk and destroyed my protection. It turned out to be a faulty cable. I suggest you use the option in the scheduler for regular parity checks to enable it to reboot without writing parity changes. Now I always do a parity check without writing parity first, and if errors are found I consider my options and make an informed choice.

The Purple drive is not ideal. It's cache is optimised for sequential reads and writes. It's not designed for random I/O.

Why not let unRAID boot into read-only mode with all disks present being readable but put simply no disks writable until such time as the licence is correct? This would at least give people access to their systems when they have a disaster such as a USB stick failure.

Some of us have well over 100TB of data and are eagerly awaiting dual parity!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is worth adding, that whilst in the EU licences can be sold, the licensor is entitled to make a charge for administration purposes. That charge could easily be $100. I remember a case very early in my career where the software vendor inserted a time bomb and only gave the code to disable it after his invoices were paid, yet another case where the software vendor came back and disabled the software after it had been resold against the terms of the licence. In both cases the software vendor was fined very heavily and had to pay all the costs incurred by the buyer, including consequential losses. The ruling of the court was that such activity could only be legal if it was specifically a term of the initial contract. Limetech need the revenue, it's not really fair to sell on your licence keys.

the documentation is ambiguous, is it 2.5" drives or 3.5" drives? I suspect the former.